dimensions of the Ford Cologne V6 engine

[TeamEvil]

Anyone know the height, width and length of the Ford Cologne V6 engine? Even approximate dimensions would help a lot.

Thanks,

TC

[letterman7]

I've got approximates - overall length flywheel to front pulley face 23.5" ; overall height, stock oil pan to top of carb, not counting air filter 26", overall width of pulleys (A/C to alternator) 30". Overall block width outside edge of valve cover to outside edge of the other cover 23" or so - but I don't have stock covers on mine.

R

[WestyPop]

I've got approximates - overall length flywheel to front pulley face 23.5" ; overall height, stock oil pan to top of carb, not counting air filter 26", overall width of pulleys (A/C to alternator) 30". Overall block width outside edge of valve cover to outside edge of the other cover 23" or so - but I don't have stock covers on mine.

Which valve covers DO you have on there?


J.R.
'68 VW (hopefully soon, to be re-powered by 2.8 Cologne)
So Cal

[letterman7]

I've got a pair of well worn Capri v6 cast aluminum covers. Definately aftermarket. I've pulled them to try to clean them up a little bit as I detail the engine.

[WestyPop]

I've got a pair of well worn Capri v6 cast aluminum covers. Definately aftermarket. I've pulled them to try to clean them up a little bit as I detail the engine.

Cool. I'd really like to get a set of the alloy covers that were oe on some of the '80s Fords, to use on the 2.8L going into my '68 Westy.

TeamEvil, what VW chassis are you planning to re-power with a Cologne V6? FWIW at one time (late 1980s?), Kennedy stated that the Cologne V6 engines were close to the ideal conversion powerplants for the VW bus! Surprisingly, a Cologne's weight is within 50-60 lbs of a Type IV aircooled VW engine.

J.R.
'68 Westy
(+ others)

[Ol'fogasaurus]

They came on some of the Capri's. If you can find them, they are usually very expensive. I wants some too and a friend put me onto a set that were painted green and also had a 4bbl maniflold in th deal. They wanted $400 plus for the set as I remember.

[letterman7]

I've got the Offenhauser manifold on this motor, too. That's going to be removed and polished. Don't believe the engine weight - this sucker is every bit of 600 pounds. I can't believe that a T4 weighs close to that. For anyone interested, here's a quick video of the engine running a few minutes after I fired it up after 35 years of sitting idle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNV0vf1W6As
Done sitting in a garage, so it's a little dark. Ran it next day for about 10 minutes with a water hose attached... sounds great. Next step is header assembly, then a teardown of the motor so I can paint and detail it.

[WestyPop]

600 lbs? Well, it may feel like that, with all accessories & full of oil!

However, Kennedy (KEP) claims 365lbs, the Merkur 2.9L was supposed to be around 295lbs, and Dave Williams' charts show 3 different weights for the Cologne V6: 305, 365, 380 lbs (the latter # may be the wider/taller 4.0L ohv Explorer engine). I can't lift my 2.8L Ford V6, but I was able to drag it across the bed of my stakebody truck fairly easily. I couldn't readily do that with my 351W V8, and it's about 525lbs. By comparison, a fully-dressed (including heater boxes) 1.6L bus engine comes in around 215lbs, while a Type IV (1.7L-2.0L) is about 315lbs.

Installed in my '68 Westfalia, I expect that the total 2.8 Cologne V6 re-power project will add 200-225 lbs, but that's including the complete H2O cooling system, adaptations for a real heater & defroster(!), and an under-dash A/C system. Obviously, not all that extra 200-225lbs will be in a big lump at the rear, but somewhat spread out along the length of the camper (condensers, evaporator, radiator, heater cores).

Of course, with more torque, there's always the temptation to add a few more 'camper' conveniences, and I'll be changing to a under-floor water tank of about 22 gallons capacity (eliminating the 4.5gallon in-cab tank), as well as adding a small gray-water tank down there also. At least the weight will be low and not negatively affecting the camper's excellent handling characteristics.

Overall though, the 2.6-2.9L Cologne V6 is supposed to be well-matched to the bus tranny ratios and return about the same fuel mileage, unless one lead-foots it all the time.


J.R.
'68 Westy
(+ others)

[59Bisquik]

WOW I was just reading this post and really suprised about guys wanting 2.8 or 2.9 Ford V6's. The 2.9 in my Bronco II is gutless and very tired. Im just looking around to find an Explorer to get the 4.0 out of. Even with the proper gearing, the little 2.9 really struggles to pull my 5k lb Bronco around on the freeway when its not perfectly flat...not to mention 9mpg. Not to disrupt your post or anything...just really suprised!

[Ol'fogasaurus]

[WestyPop]

WOW I was just reading this post and really suprised about guys wanting 2.8 or 2.9 Ford V6's. The 2.9 in my Bronco II is gutless and very tired. Im just looking around to find an Explorer to get the 4.0 out of. Even with the proper gearing, the little 2.9 really struggles to pull my 5k lb Bronco around on the freeway when its not perfectly flat...not to mention 9mpg. Not to disrupt your post or anything...just really suprised!

Bummer on your Bronco 2.9L’s performance, although 5,000 lbs is a fairly heavy Bronco II, right? One of my nephews had a ’88 Ranger with the 2.9L & needed a battery jump after a family get-together. My Merkur Scorpio was close, so I drove it over & jumped the Ranger. That was the first time I’d personally been able to compare the two 2.9L Cologne V6 engines, literally, side-by-side. What a difference… the Ranger engine, with under 200,000 miles on it was rough sounding, especially when revved above 3,500rpm. The Scorpio engine, with over 365,000miles, was smooth all the way to its factory redline of 5,800rpm (I never over-rev it, in spite of its spunky nature). My nephew was really shocked at the disparity between the two similar engines.

Honestly, I had been forewarned, since some years before I had talked to Sven Pruett about the feasibility of building a 4.0L-based engine for the Scorpio at some point. Sven said that the 4.0L, 2.9L & 2.8L engines Ford used for the Bronco/Ranger/Aerostar/Explorer vehicles were considered by Ford to be ‘truck’ engines, and therefore, did not need to be balanced for higher RPMs, their cams/intake systems/exhaust systems were all for low-RPM torque production, and their fuel delivery maps were set up likewise. OTOH Sven said that the Scorpio’s 2.9L engines were designed for a wider range of torque/horsepower delivery and expected to be able to cruise long stretches at 120-130mph in Europe. In addition, Europeans also had a Cosworth DOHC version of the 2.9L available for even higher speeds.

Seriously, I’ve never driven my Scorpio over 115mph, but I do know that, at a steady 90mph, for a couple hundred miles it returned just over 27mpg. OTOH the several owners I’ve talked to with 2.6 and 2.8L Cologne-powered VW buses & campers all said their highway fuel consumption was around 23-24mpg, fairly close to the factory air-cooled buses. The 2.8L Cologne that’s going in my camper is out of a Mustang, so I expect it will have smoother running than a 2.8L ‘truck’ motor, but I still don’t expect it to have the seamless power of the Scorpio’s 2.9L EFI motor. That would be my ideal motor for my Westy, but they’re not that common, and I’ve already got the 2.8 ready to go.

Sven also said that the off-road/desert racing Ranger 4.0L Cologne V6s were balanced properly, with custom cams, worked-over heads, intakes & exhausts, and that some of them revved smoothly to about 9,000rpm! So it IS possible to make a 2.9L or 4.0L Cologne OHV engine kick out some power, roughly 300hp, and the 4.0L doesn’t have to be revved as high to attain that level as does the 2.9L. Add a turbo (or two) if one really needs more than that, I guess, since in N.A. form, the heads seem to be the limiting factors.

That’s about where my Cologne ‘research’ (just being nosy & asking lots of questions!) ends.



J.R.
’68 Westy
(+ others)

[59Bisquik]

Pretty interesting stuff! And yes...I am a little heavy for a B2 that is supposed to weigh in stock around 3400bs. I have a few bolt on upgrades! My 2.9 has 200k on the odometer and is running 60wt because of a slight engine knock. A 4.0 is coming soon! Thanks for the info!

[letterman7]

600 lbs? Well, it may feel like that, with all accessories & full of oil!

Yeah, you're right! I never did put it on a scale, but damn... I must be getting old! There was a time I could hoof a dressed T1 motor off the back of my truck... I can't even budge this v6 without an overhead hoist! I hope you're right about the transaxle matching up with the powerband - mine's out getting rebuilt right now!

[fastmc25]

The 2.8L Cologne Ford V6 is of no relation to Fords monstrosity 2.9L in the Bronco..... Two totally different engines.... The 2.8 Cologne Ford is a much better engine.... It comes in the Ford Scorpio ... of German heritage....

[59Bisquik]

I thought they were the same, just carbed instead of EFI and a little bigger. But then the other post says the 2.8, 2.9 and 4.0's were truck series. Oh well...just gotta find a 4.0 for mine.